No, you're wrong. It's a Ukrainian radical feminist organization. Their goals and stances have nothing whatever to do with anarchism. I'm sorry, I think they're attention-whoring bimbos just as you do, but the fact that you don't like them isn't an adequate reason to call them something they're not.

Sorry, Jason, but they destroyed memorials for Christians who were persecuted by the commies in Eastern Europe and Russia in support of Pussy Riot. And Pussy Riot desecrated the largest Cathedral in Russia in order to protest Putin. What's any of that got to do with feminism? They're anti government, anti religion, anti law-and-order, and counter-culture political activists. In other words, anarchists. Textbook examples, actually. Feminism is just a new twist which they hope will garner them public support from people who aren't paying much attention to what they're really doing, and the nudity gets them media attention their small protests wouldn't normally merit.

The Russian Orthodox Church, like other organised religions is a corrupt, life-denying, abusive organisation. It should be desecrated. Governments and "law and order" (violence is a better word) should be opposed by anyone with any love in their soul. These organisations have the blood of innocent children dripping from their fingers. Anarchism is a force for good.

Roger Yates, who was moralizing at us all a week or so ago is now suggesting that religious bigotry and commission of hate crimes are examples of good behavior? You need to strap that tinfoil hat on a little tighter. You nutters are usually better at hiding your mental illness from the normal people.

So to be opposed to organised religion is religious bigotry now is it? That is a marvelous example of Orwellian double speak is it not? "Religious bigotry" is the bigotry of the religious. You should have written "bigotry against organised religion" and your argument would have had more force. I admit to intolerance in this regard. Dancing in a church is hardly a hate crime. The crime was to put these people behind bars for it. Personally I don't give a toss for the wounded sensibilities of the religious. As I keep saying, they would better embody their beliefs if they took offense at warfare. Personal attacks weaken your argument, mate, they are best avoided.

Desecration of a house of worship is by definition a hate crime. You literally advocate hate crimes should be committed against Christians, and then ask how that can be considered religious bigotry? I thought you were crazy, but maybe you're just retarded.

To attack a Christian person for being a Christian is, of course, criminal. But is it criminal to say that the core beliefs of Christianity are nonsense and, moreover, that they promote violence and harm to huge numbers of gullible people? Or, for example, is to deny that "sanctity" has any basis in truth and to assert that it is merely an opinion held by idiots, is that a crime? A "house of worship" is no more privileged, in my view, than a public house or a bar. If someone walks into a bar, does a dance, and tells the drinkers that alcohol is rubbish, they may not be too popular but are unlikely to go to goal for it. Moreover, the drinkers would get little sympathy for claiming that some magical something in the bar (a sanctity) had been harmed somehow and that their belief in it had been offended.The only thing that privileges a "house of worship" over a bar is that the people who use it are prepared to get violent if their nonsense is challenged.

Now I am going to argue against myself. I think that people in a Church have a right to enjoy the atmosphere of "sanctity" in the place if they wish. Let's make an analogy with a concert hall. The music lovers can expect to listen to the music without disruption. This is a matter of decent behaviour. But for music lovers to claim that some magical musical essence in the place had been violated is to go to far. Jazz musicians died in the Nazi death camps for playing jazz. To play jazz was a crime. To play music was a crime under the Taliban. So there is some similarity between music and religion in the history of intolerance. Musicians and music lovers, however, do not claim special privileges. The difficulty I have with religion is that I think it is force for the promotion of folly and evil in the world. People have a right to be idiots and think bad thoughts, however. But let's all dance in a church and be offensive to these harmful idiots at least once in our lives.

There are people all over the world killing other people, blood is running in the streets. Who in their right mind gives a toss about clothing or no clothing? For God's sake get a grip. If a woman (or man or the Pope for that matter) wants to be naked in public how does that compare in significance to the death of a child? The answer is it doesn't in the slightest. Only to life hating people. This issue is trivia. If women want to be topless or cover themselves from head to toe it's their business. Let the offended (liberal or religious) take offense. They are wretched fools. Who cares about them? Maybe if the offended of this world really cared for the Good they would take offense at the arms industry.

Thank You for your comment Please keep it civilized here , I will not tolerate any insult in my blog or any racist or hateful commentThe Comments in this blog with exclusion of the blog's owner do not represent the views of the blog's owner